Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P
So you would be for that :huh: I was not aware that you were supportive of chinese style politics.... I mean you haven't exactly shown any love for them.
I don't think that's Chinese style. It would be a requirement for getting state money. Surely you wouldn't want mom's to receive state money, have no job, and just sit on her ass (or laying on her back) getting pregnant so the state will kick out MORE money?
You have to know that this would exacerbate the problem since there is a new infant tying mom down to take care of.
I mean she could always refuse and not receive state money. No civil rights would be violated either way.
The cost of that shot would outweigh the cost kicked out for a newborn. That's for sure.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
[QUOTE=vidcc]
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
statistics are not uniform... we have red states and blue states don't we? By your theory if 60% of SD vote for one party then surely 60% of every state would vote for the same party.....they mirror each other...right ?
Humans are indiviuals and if the bulk of humans act in one way in one area that doesn't mean the bulk of humans will act the same way in another.
Perhaps if the neocons realised this then we would have been a bit better prepared in Iraq instead of thinking they would welcome us (because "they think and act the same as us").
Why are you having so much trouble concentrating?
We are talking about human behavior, which, (you've said) as to the matter of sex/pregnancy/abortion, is uniform and accepted to be so by women across the nation...that these attitudes and behaviors are formed not by cogent thought processes, but by biological imperative.
This does not allow such discrepancies as have been noted, vid.
Now-how do you account for the difference in the rates of abortion relative to monies spent?
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
[QUOTE=j2k4]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Why are you having so much trouble concentrating?
We are talking about human behavior, which, (you've said) as to the matter of sex/pregnancy/abortion, is uniform and accepted to be so by women across the nation...that these attitudes and behaviors are formed not by cogent thought processes, but by biological imperative.
This does not allow such discrepancies as have been noted, vid.
Now-how do you account for the difference in the rates of abortion relative to monies spent?
How do you account for it?
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
How do you account for it?
Social mores are different in South Dakota than in California.
Social influence is effective.
Vid denies society's entree (influence-wise) in such matters; what's more, he denies it's ability to effect any change, whatsoever.
Those numbers he dismisses give lie to all that, you see.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Is S Dakota a religious sorta place? high church attendance and all the rest of it? I think religion, the urban-rural mix (i.e. percentage living in small communities) and various other things will probably make direct comparisons between states hard
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
ffs kev. who do you borrow your straw men from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will
just because x amount of people that behave one way live in one area doesn't mean a mirror happens in another and well you know it.
Statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything if you cherrypick and ignore other aspects. and well you know it.
Are there lower teenage pregnancy rates in states with abstinance only programs? Is the divorce rate lower in red states with these intrusive "moral behaviour" rules?.....
Newsflash, humans are individuals
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I don't think that's Chinese style. It would be a requirement for getting state money. Surely you wouldn't want mom's to receive state money, have no job, and just sit on her ass (or laying on her back) getting pregnant so the state will kick out MORE money?
You have to know that this would exacerbate the problem since there is a new infant tying mom down to take care of.
I mean she could always refuse and not receive state money. No civil rights would be violated either way.
The cost of that shot would outweigh the cost kicked out for a newborn. That's for sure.
So you don't see any similarity to chinese child producing policy?
I agree with all the bit about not wanting someone on welfare to keep producing children. To me welfare should be a safety net, not an alternative wage source to allow people to become parasites. There are lots of things wrong with the system including the minmum wage being so low discouraging people with families from working...but that's a different subject.
Linking mandatory contraception to welfare payments, no matter how it's justifed, leads us down the chinese human rights road we condemn.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
ffs kev. who do you borrow your straw men from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will
just because x amount of people that behave one way live in one area doesn't mean a mirror happens in another and well you know it.
Statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove anything if you cherrypick and ignore other aspects. and well you know it.
Are there lower teenage pregnancy rates in states with abstinance only programs? Is the divorce rate lower in red states with these intrusive "moral behaviour" rules?.....
Newsflash, humans are individuals
Well, then.
Can you finally acknowledge the propriety of state's rights as a method of influencing/determining the milieu in which one wishes to live?
The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.
If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?
Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people.
Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.
Neat, huh? :)
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
[
Well, then.
Can you finally acknowledge the propriety of state's rights as a method of influencing/determining the milieu in which one wishes to live?
Up to a limit there is and should be a right to dictate things that go on in the public square. I cannot accept that this should extend to private affairs which are and should be nobody elses business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.
If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?
Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people.
You think you should have the right to make decisions for individuals you have never met and have no relation to in private matters with which you have no relation or direct interest (eg. you are not the father)
I do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.
Neat, huh? :)
you sure about that? I will look into all the SD proposals later to see if anyone there has "broached the idea"
Why should someone have to relocate because they don't share your personal values?.
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Up to a limit there is and should be a right to dictate things that go on in the public square. I cannot accept that this should extend to private affairs which are and should be nobody elses business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The effect of societal preference is there, and cannot be denied.
If they want limit abortion by legal means, who is to say they are wrong?
Societal pressure is applied by making certain actions unlawful (within applicable jurisdictions) or, minimally, inconvenient (pushing certain behaviors outside state boundaries).
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as it is the will of the majority of the people.
You think you should have the right to make decisions for individuals you have never met and have no relation to in private matters with which you have no relation or direct interest (eg. you are not the father)
I do not.
No, I don't think I have the right to make such decisions, but society surely does.
These "individuals" you speak of occasionally seek to form a united entity for the purpose of expressing societal concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Nothing will stop a South Dakotan desiring an abortion from crossing a border to obtain one (no one has broached the idea of prosecuting those who do), and any who feel that the availibility of the procedure is integral to their happiness are FREE to relocate to, say, California.
Neat, huh? :)
you sure about that? I will look into all the SD proposals later to see if anyone there has "broached the idea"
Why should someone have to relocate because they don't share your personal values?.
See above.
